IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 19574/2025 Decided on: 11.12.2025 Deewani & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this matter has been heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:- “i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction may very kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners after completion of 2/5 years of contract service at par with those appointed on govt. contract basis alongwith all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case of the petitioners, issue raised by petitioners and relief claimed herein have already been adjudicated in Nitin Thakur versus State of H.P and others2 and Manoj Kumar Sharma and others versus State of H.P and others3. Nitin Thakur’s2 case was disposed of with following operative directions: - “89. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, present petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioners on the post they were offered engagement in the Department of Horticulture after completion of two years contractual service in terms of regularization policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” Learned counsel further submits that petitioners would be satisfied in case respondents/Competent Authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid decisions. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 4. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 2 CWP No. 4971/2024, decided on 23.09.2025 a/w connected matters 3 CWPOA No. 6612/2019 decided on 17.09.2025 3 communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 11th December, 2025(rohit)